4 ms·
I don't dispute any of that. But what it means is merely that compliance will never be perfect. Companies will always test the limits of the law and look for lo
by fauigerzigerk 7y ago
I don't dispute any of that. But what it means is merely that compliance will never be perfect. Companies will always test the limits of the law and look for loopholes.
Like with tax compliance, this will always be an arms race. But if the law raises the bar, they will jump a little bit higher on average.
It doesn't have to be perfect. Privacy is not black or white, and trackers themselves are anything but perfect.
I recently looked at the list of what Google thinks I'm interested in. It's funny. Supposedly, I have a particularly strong interest in vehicles and buying cars. In fact I don't even have a driving licence, never owned a car, never will.
The list goes on and on like that. They must have rolled the dice to come up with things like "Flowers" and "American Football". I feel my privacy is completely safe with these geniuses :)
- kube-system 7y agoFor sure, mass marketers prefer quantity to quality. Google/Facebook are not doing anything particularly novel in the realm of what is possible, nothing more than is needed to get accurate enough across a large number of users. It's the more targeted uses of fingerprinting and data collection that are scary. If you're a person with lots of money or influence, there's already someone out there who is specifically trying to collect data about you in particular. Those people and organizations are looking at the data in much more detail than mass marketers.